Evaluation of the benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of potential alternatives to iFOBT testing for colorectal cancer screening in Australia

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 143, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 269-282

  Lew, Jie Bin ^a,b   St John, D James B ^c,d   Macrae, Finlay A ^d   Emery, Jon D ^d,e   Ee, Hooi C ^f   Jenkins, Mark A ^g   He, Emily ^a,b   Grogan, Paul ^h   Caruana, Michael ^a,b   Sarfati, Diana ⁱ   Greuter, Marjolein J E ^j   Coupé, Veerle M H ^j   Canfell, Karen ^a,b,k  

^a CANCER RESEARCH DIVISION   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^c CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY CENTRE   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^f SIR CHARLES GAIRDNER HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^h CANCER COUNCIL AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^j VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^k UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

Australia; colonosocopy; colorectal cancer screening; computed tomographic colonography; cost effectiveness; iFOBT; multitarget faecal DNA testing; National Bowel Cancer Screening Progam; plasma DNA testing; sigmoidoscopy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FECES LEVEL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OCCULT BLOOD; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SIGMOIDOSCOPY; BLOOD; CHEMISTRY; COLORECTAL TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ECONOMICS; FECES; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

DNA;

AGED; AUSTRALIA; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DNA; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FECES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; OCCULT BLOOD; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGMOIDOSCOPY;

EID: 85043310981     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.31314     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Scholefield JH, Moss SM, Mangham CM, et al. Nottingham trial of faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer: a 20-year follow-up. Gut 2012;61:1036–40.
2. Shaukat A, Mongin SJ, Geisser MS, et al. Long-term mortality after screening for colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1106–14.
3. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, et al. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:1541–9.
4. Holme O, Loberg M, Kalager M, et al. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312:606–15.
5. Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 2014;348:g2467.
6. Segnan N, Armaroli P, Bonelli L, et al. Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the Italian Randomized Controlled Trial–SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1310–22.
7. Atkin W, Wooldrage K, Parkin DM, et al. Long term effects of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening after 17 years of follow-up: the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017;389:1299–1311.
8. Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, et al. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2345–57.
9. Manser CN, Bachmann LM, Brunner J, et al. Colonoscopy screening markedly reduces the occurrence of colon carcinomas and carcinoma-related death: a closed cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:110–17.
10. Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1095–105.
11. Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1207–17.
12. Church TR, Wandell M, Lofton-Day C, et al. Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Gut 2014;63:317–25.
13. Imperiale TF, Wagner DR, Lin CY, et al. Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings. N Engl J Med 2000;343:169–74.
14. Symonds EL, Pedersen SK, Baker RT, et al. A blood test for methylated BCAT1 and IKZF1 vs. a fecal immunochemical test for detection of colorectal neoplasia. Clin Trans Gastroenterol 2016;7:e137.
15. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: monitoring report 2013-14. Cancer series no. 94. Cat. no. CAN 94. Canberra, Australia: AIHW, 2015.
16. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: monitoring report 2016. Cancer series no. 98. Cat. no. CAN 97. Canberra, Australia: AIHW, 2016.
17. Lew JB, St John DJ, Xu XM, et al. Long-term evaluation of benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in Australia: a modelling study. Lancet Public Health 2017;2:e331–40.
18. Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, et al. Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2016;315:2595–609.
19. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;20:21–35.
20. Greuter MJ, Xu XM, Lew JB, et al. Modeling the adenoma and serrated pathway to colorectal cancer (ASCCA). Risk Anal 2014;34:889–910.
21. Stoop EM, de Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, et al. Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2012;13:55–64.
22. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Australian cancer incidence and mortality (ACIM) books: bowel cancer. Canberra, Australia: AIHW, 2014.
23. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). general record of incidence of mortality (GRIM) books 2013: all causes combined. Canberra, Australia: AIHW, 2015.
24. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Australian cancer incidence and mortality (ACIM) books: colorectal cancer (also called bowel cancer). Canberra, Australian: AIHW, 2017.
25. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 3302.0.55.001—life tables, states, territories and Australia, 2014–2016. October 18, 2017. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3302.0.55.0012014-2016?OpenDocument (last accessed date November 24, 2017).
26. Morris M, Iacopetta B, Platell C. Comparing survival outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer treated in public and private hospitals. Med J Aust 2007;186:296–300.
27. Parente F, Vailati C, Boemo C, et al. Improved 5-year survival of patients with immunochemical faecal blood test-screen-detected colorectal cancer versus non-screening cancers in northern Italy. Digest Liver Dis 2015;47:68–72.
28. Gill MD, Bramble MG, Hull MA, et al. Screen-detected colorectal cancers are associated with an improved outcome compared with stage-matched interval cancers. Br J Cancer 2014;111:2076–81.
29. Pande R, Froggatt P, Baragwanath P, et al. Survival outcome of patients with screening versus symptomatically detected colorectal cancers. Colorectal Dis 2013;15:74–9.
30. Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, et al. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1287–97.
31. The Village Voice. New blood test gratefully received. October 3, 2014. Available at: http://villagevoice.net.au/2014/10/03/new-blood-test-gratefully-received/ (last accessed date November 30, 2016).
32. How much does Cologuard cost? 2016. Available at: http://www.cologuardtest.com/what-to-expect-with-cologuard/faq/cologuard-cost-how-much-is-cologuard (last accessed date November 30, 2016).
33. Australian Government Department of Health. Medicare benefits schedule book (operating from 01 January 2014). Canberra, Australia: Australia Government Department of Health, 2013.
34. Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA). National hospital cost data collection Australia public hospitals cost report 2011–2012, round 16. New South Wales, Australia: IHPA, 2014.
35. Pignone MP, Flitcroft KL, Howard K, et al. Costs and cost-effectiveness of full implementation of a biennial faecal occult blood test screening program for bowel cancer in Australia. Med J Aust 2011;194:180–5.
36. Ananda S, Kosmider S, Tran B, et al. The rapidly escalating cost of treating colorectal cancer in Australia. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2016;12:33–40.
37. O'Leary BA, Olynyk JK, Neville AM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening: comparison of community-based flexible sigmoidoscopy with fecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;19:38–47.
38. van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:343–50.
39. Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, et al. Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection–systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 2011;259:393–405.
40. Jentschura D, Raute M, Winter J, et al. Complications in endoscopy of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Surg Endosc 1994;8:672–6.
41. Jin P, Kang Q, Wang X, et al. Performance of a second-generation methylated SEPT9 test in detecting colorectal neoplasm. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;30:830–3.
42. Ahlquist DA, Sargent DJ, Loprinzi CL, et al. Stool DNA and occult blood testing for screen detection of colorectal neoplasia. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:441–50, W81.
43. Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA 2004;291:1713–19.
44. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Consumer price index: march quarter 2013. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013.
45. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Consumer price index: march quarter 2015. Canberra, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2015.
46. Bishop J, Glass P, Tracey E, et al. Health economics review of bowel cancer screening in Australia. Sydney, Australia: Cancer Institute NSW, 2008.
47. Cancer Council Australia Colonoscopy Surveillance Working Party. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Surveillance Colonoscopy – in adenoma follow-up; following curative resection of colorectal cancer; and for cancer surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. Sydney, Australia: Cancer Council Australia. 2011.
48. Khalid-de BC, Jonkers D, Smits K, et al. Participation in colorectal cancer screening trials after first-time invitation: a systematic review. Endoscopy 2011 Dec;43:1059–86.
49. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). National Bowel Cancer Screening Program: monitoring report 2017. Cancer series no.104. Cat. no. CAN 103. Canberra, Australia: AIHW, 2017.
50. Australian Government Department of Health. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) Guidelines. 2016. Available at: https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/section-d/section-d-cea/d4-variables-in-the-economic-evaluation.html (last accessed date December 22, 2016).
51. Lew JB, Simms KT, Smith MA, et al. Primary HPV testing versus cytology-based cervical screening in women in Australia vaccinated for HPV and unvaccinated: effectiveness and economic assessment for the National Cervical Screening Program. Lancet Public Health 2:e96–e107.
52. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). National bowel cancer screening program: monitoring report 2013-14. Cancer series no. 94. Cat. no. CAN 94. Canberra, Australia: AIHW, 2015.
53. Ladabaum U, Mannalithara A. Comparative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a multitarget stool DNA test to screen for colorectal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2016;151:427–39.
54. Zauber AG, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Wilschut J, et al. Cost-effectivenss of DNA stool testing to screen for colorectal cancer (AHRQ technology assessment). December 20, 2007. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285164/ (last accessed date January 19, 2017).
55. Ladabaum U, Alvarez-Osorio L, Rosch T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in Germany: current endoscopic and fecal testing strategies versus plasma methylated Septin 9 DNA. EIO 2014;02: E96–E104.
56. Ladabaum U, Allen J, Wandell M, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with blood-based biomarkers: cost-effectiveness of methylated septin 9 DNA versus current strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2013;22:1567–76.